In Brief
A CRPF constable was suspended and dismissed following a rape allegation and charge of unauthorized absence from duty. Although acquitted in criminal court, the Union challenged the High Court's decision setting aside the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that while CRPF Rules do not mandate appointing a Presenting Officer, an Inquiry Officer must remain an independent adjudicator. When the Inquiry Officer himself conducted examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses, he assumed the role of prosecutor, violating natural justice principles. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the dismissal and permit a fresh inquiry with proper procedures.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.